Foreword

I am a medical
science Masters student in the United Kingdom and hope that my comments
are worthy of consideration.

Vivien
Pomfrey

Introduction

I commend you on
your very detailed and thoughtful draft Code of Practice

I note that "The
strategic intent of the NHMRC is to work with others for the health of
all Australians...by promoting informed debate...and applying research
rigour."

I am one of the
growing number of scientifically-aware people who believe that human health
would benefit from the abandonment of the use of animals as models for
human conditions, on the grounds that such animal use is intrinsically
not rigorous. I also believe that being compelled to collude
in harming animals during one's education is damaging to psychological
health, causing empathic distress and/or desensitisation to suffering.

I will specify below,
mostly in the order in which they are presented in the draft Code, clauses
with which I strongly agree and those with which I do not agree, as well
as making additional comments and suggestions.

Comments on Introduction

I strongly support
the aim: "The Code emphasises the responsibilities of investigators,
teachers and institutions using animals to...promote the development and
use of techniques which replace animal use in scientific and teaching
activities."

I strongly support
the aim: "The Code emphasises the responsibilities of investigators,
teachers and institutions using animals to...avoid pain or distress for
each animal used in scientific and teaching activities."

I do not agree with
the statement that "the use of animals continues to be essential
in some areas of research if people are to benefit from advances in health
care." This is an opinion and should not be stated as fact.

Comments on Definitions
of terms

I advocate the addition
of the words 'harm', harmful' and 'harming' to some clauses in order to
distinguish between studies which have some detrimental effects on animals
and those which do not. If these changes are adopted, the words will need
to be defined in the glossary of definitions of terms. A suitable definition
for 'harmful' in this context would be 'with the potential to cause physical
or psychological injury or distress, including the killing of animals
to provide tissue and the killing of animals after experiments or where
surplus to scientific requirements.'

Comments on main
body of Code

I strongly support
Clause 1.1 which begins: "Scientific activities using animals may
be performed only when they are essential..."

I strongly support
Clause 1.8 which states: "Techniques which totally or partially replace
the use of animals for scientific purposes must be sought and used wherever
possible."

I strongly support
Clause 1.11 which states: "Scientific activities involving the use
of animals must not be repeated unnecessarily."

I would amend Clause
1.13 to read: "Overproduction of animals bred for scientific purposes
and the killing of healthy animals should be avoided." Also see my
comments on Clause 3.3.17.

I am opposed to Clause
1.15 which states: "The design and management of animal accommodation
should meet species-specific needs where not precluded by the requirements
of the project." My objection is that I do not agree that requirements
of a project should be allowed to override animal welfare. If there is
conflict, the project, not the animal accommodation, must be modified.
This clause in fact conflicts with the next one:

1.16 "Animals
should be transported, housed, fed, watered, handled and used under conditions
that meet species(-)specific needs. The welfare of the animals must be
a primary consideration in the provision of care which should be based
on the behavioural and biological needs of the species." I support
this clause.

I strongly support
the first sentence of Clause 1.19 which states: "Projects should
be designed to avoid pain or distress to animals." The second sentence,
which reads: "If this is not possible, pain or distress must be minimised"
should be qualified by a statement along the following lines: "It
is only permissible to cause pain or distress, however minimal, when the
project is for the purpose of producing a net benefit to the animal(s)
concerned, e.g. therapy or humane population control.
The second sentence in the clause in fact conflicts with the earlier statement:
"The Code emphasises the responsibilities of investigators, teachers
and institutions using animals to...avoid pain or distress for
each animal used in scientific and teaching activities." (my italics
to emphasise difference between 'avoid' and 'minimise')

I strongly support
the statement in Clause 1.20 that "investigators and teachers must
assume that animals experience pain in a manner similar to humans."
I would like to add 'overwhelming' in front of the word 'evidence' in
the subsequent sentence: "Decisions regarding the animals' welfare
must be based on this assumption unless there is evidence to the contrary."

Clause 1.21 states:
"An animal with signs of pain or distress not predicted in the proposal,
must have the pain or distress alleviated promptly. Alleviation of such
pain or distress must take precedence over finishing a project. If prompt
alleviation is not possible the animal must be euthanased without delay."
I feel strongly that 'not predicted' should be deleted. It makes no difference
to animal welfare whether the pain or distress is predicted or not, and
should therefore make no difference to the human response to such pain
or distress.

I am strongly opposed
to Clause 1.25 which states: "Where it is established that anaesthetics
or analgesics cannot be used to alleviate pain such as in certain toxicological
or animal production studies or in animal models of disease, the planned
endpoint of the project must be as early as feasible to avoid or minimise
pain or distress to the animals." My grounds for objection are that
the clause accepts the need/desirability for projects in these fields
which cause non-alleviable pain, which I do not. Anaesthesia and/or analgesia
must be used when required on animal welfare grounds.

Re Clause 1.27 which
states: “Death as an end-point must be avoided whenever possible",
I would like to see 'whenever possible' deleted, as I do not accept that
animals should be deliberately exposed to potentially harmful situations
or to be deliberately killed except for the purpose of alleviating their
own suffering, or in self-defence where there is no feasible ethical alternative.

I do not understand
the meaning of the 'orientation' of new Animal Ethics Committee (AEC)
members in Clause 2.1.1 (viii), and therefore request that this be made
clearer.

I strongly support
Clause 2.1.1 (xi) which states: "(Institutions that use animals for
scientific purposes must implement processes so that the governing body
of the institution or its delegate is assured of compliance with the Code
and relevant legislation. This must at least include)...establishing mechanisms
to respond to enquiries or complaints concerning the use of animals within
the institution and ensure that staff members and students may voice concerns
without jeopardising their employment, careers or coursework..."

I would like students
to be included in the remit of Clause 2.1.1 (xii) regarding "establishing
and making known procedures for the fair resolution of disagreements between
AEC members, between the AEC and teachers or investigators or between
the AEC and the institution." In other words, procedures should be
also established and made known for the fair resolution of disagreements
between students and teachers or investigators or the AEC.

I strongly support
Clause 2.2.1 where it states that "AECs must have terms of reference
publicly available which include provisions to..." with regard to
point (iv) "how AEC members are appointed, re-appointed or retired..."
and point (v) on members declaring conflicts of interest.

I am concerned about
Clause 2.2.1 (x) relating to the AEC being able to authorise emergency
treatment or euthanasia, on the grounds that such emergency action must
not be delayed by any requirement to consult the AEC. Perhaps
this should be clarified.

I do not agree with
the minimum number of AEC members specified in Clause 2.2.2 (four). This
is too low to provide the necessary balance of views and range of expertise.
I would like to state at this point that no institution should be permitted
to carry out animal experiments if it cannot fulfil the full range of
requirements in the Code, including all stipulations for an AEC.

There is also a
serious omission in the categories from which members are to be selected:
it is extremely important that at least one member is knowledgeable about
non-animal methods in medical research and education. If no individual
can be found who is an authority in both areas (there are significant
differences between research and educational animal use, both in purpose
and in the range of methodologies), two people will need to be appointed,
one to fulfil each 'alternatives' remit.

Re Clause 2.2.5,
the sentence: "It is preferable that the Chairperson is an additional
appointment to Category A to D members" should be changed to: "It
is essential that the Chairperson..." A chairperson of any body must
be impartial, and committee members in this context are perhaps unlikely
to be so. There must be a permanent non-voting chair who is accepted by
all AEC members as impartial.

Clause 2.2.9 (ii)
should be amended to ensure that person(s) with expertise in non-animal-harming
'alternatives' are present for the committee to be quorate (see my comments
re Clause 2.2.2).

Clause 2.2.9 (iii):
"the conduct of quorate AEC meetings in exceptional circumstances
where a face-to-face meeting is not possible, for example through the
use of video linking or teleconferencing" is unnecessarily technophobic.
Educational institutions in particular should not automatically regard
IT-based meetings as a last resort - they are often preferable with regard
to convenience, cost and the environmental impact of travel. This can
enable them to be held more frequently.

I am unhappy with
Clause 2.2.9 (vii) re the AEC being required to establish and document
procedures to "advance approval for the immediate use of animals
should that be required for the diagnosis of unexplained and severe disease
outbreaks or morbidity/mortality in animals or people."Animals should
not be used to study disease in humans. In the case of an outbreak of
disease in animals, animals of the species concerned should be studied
and, where possible, treated, as with humans - not used.

Clause 2.2.13 about
irreconcilable differences between the AEC and an investigator or teacher
should be amended to include students, as in my suggestion for Clause
2.1.1 (xii).

I strongly support
the recommendations in Clause 2.2.14 about the use of plain English and
the provision of lay descriptions (perhaps 'translations' would be an
appropriate term) or glossaries.

Re Clause 2.2.15
(iv), I am concerned that there is no mention in the document of ethical
sourcing of animal tissue. Indeed, the whole document, by addressing research
and educational animal use together, fails to stress the differences between
types of animal use. I do not know the Australian legal situation but,
in the UK, harmful experiments on live vertebrates and specified invertebrates
are covered by legislation that requires the animals to be sourced from
laboratories, but this is not the case for animals which are simply killed
to provide tissue. ECVAM (one of the bodies referred to in your lists
of information sources) recommends ethical sourcing for such tissue, as
do a number of other organisations. Ethical sourcing means the use of
tissue from animals which have not been deliberately bred and killed for
reasons which are not for their own welfare. It can include animals which
have died naturally or accidentally or been euthanased for humane reasons.
Thus I would like to see some reference to the ethical sourcing of animal
tissue (including that used to provide microscope slides, plastinated
organs, etc.).

Re Clause 2.2.15
(x),

·
I do not agree with the causing of any suffering to animals if it is not
for the net benefit of the individual animals concerned.
· 'Prolonged' in
the context of restraint needs to be defined.
· I do not consider
that there is any justification for ?production of monoclonal antibodies
by the ascites method; I understand that humane methods of producing these
have been available for a long time.

Clause 2.2.16: I
am not familiar with SOPs but feel that the requirement for review of
these by the AEC every three years seems inadequate. I would suggest that
annual review would be more appropriate.

Re Clause 2.2.20,
I wonder whether there is scope for recommending wider consultation when
it is difficult to reach consensus. This may reveal precedents for similar
situations and help to guide decision-making, although precedents must
not be automatically allowed to influence decisions directly.

Re Clause 2.2.21,
promptness (of decision-making on approving proposals) must be of secondary
importance to animal welfare considerations. Could this be explicitly
stated in the Code?

I do not accept the
need or desirability for the harmful types of animal research detailed
in Clause 2.2.29.

Re Clause 2.2.30,
I would prefer inspections of animal holding areas to be required to be
more frequent than annually. At least some should be conducted without
prior notification of the investigators, teachers or others involved in
the projects or in animal care.

Re Clause 2.2.31,
it is not clear whether the code has any legal standing and thus how breaches
should be dealt with, for example whether 'remedial action' can include
sanctions against persons committing the breach. Perhaps this is beyond
the scope of the document, but clarification would be helpful.

I would like to see
Clause 2.2.32: "Institutions should consider appointing an officer
with veterinary or other appropriate qualifications who is authorised
by the AEC to ensure that the projects are proceeding in compliance with
the Code and the decisions of the AEC" changed to "Institutions
must appoint an officer..." This officer must have no pecuniary interests
which might bias his/her decisions.

Clause 2.2.34 states:
"In cases of emergency before an animal is treated or killed, all
reasonable steps must be taken to consult with the responsible investigator
or teacher..." I consider that it is more important to seek urgent
veterinary attention for the animal's benefit than to consult with experimenters.
If a vet considers that suffering is severe the animal must be treated
or euthanased promptly. It is the fault of the experimenters and their
associates if an animal is suffering, which reduces the degree to which
experimenters' needs should be met, and difficulty in contacting experimenters
may indicate non-compliance with Clause 3.1.7 (see below). The only situation
which I can envisage in which the experimenters should be consulted first
is where records necessary to assess the animal's needs, for example records
of what experimental procedure has been carried out, cannot be found.
Clause 3.3.10 (see later) refers to the need for promptness in alleviating
suffering during experiments, as does Clause 3.3.37, and the same criteria
should apply here.

I am not sure whether
annual progress reports, as recommended in Clause 2.2.35, are sufficient.
Many projects are of short duration and thus I think that reports should
be more frequent - at least four times a year, in keeping with the frequency
of regular AEC meetings. Perhaps there is scope for variable intervals
for progress reporting as with inspections (Clause 2.2.30), depending
on a project's potential animal welfare implications; these could be decided
by the AEC as part of their approvals of proposals and subject to revision
in the light of events.

Clause 3.1.7 states:
"Investigators and teachers must make arrangements so that they or
other responsible persons can be contacted in the event of emergencies."
See my comments on Clause 2.2.34 (above).

Clause 3.2.2: "...Where
relevant, species and individual animals should be chosen on the basis
that the proposed studies will result in the least pain or distress. In
making this decision, investigators and teachers should consider all aspects
of the biological nature of the animals, including their behavioural characteristics
and their cognitive development" could perhaps be more specific,
for example including reference to sentience, social needs and susceptibility
to stress from captivity or handling.

Clause 3.3.4 reprises
Clause 1.20 and I strongly support it.

Re Clause 3.3.5 (v):
"The investigator or teacher must anticipate and take all possible
steps to avoid or minimise pain and distress including...using anaesthetic,
analgesic and tranquillising agents appropriate to the species and the
scientific or educational aims", I would prefer 'and the scientific
or educational aims' to be deleted. The clause relates to ethical rather
than scientific issues, so the minimisation of pain and distress should
not be compromised by issues not directly related to animal welfare.

Clause 3.3.7 states:
"The use of local or general anaesthetics, analgesics or tranquillisers
must be appropriate to the species, and should at least parallel their
use in current medical or veterinary practice." I agree with this
but would like to see account taken of two important differences between
the treatment of humans and the treatment of other animals, namely that
(a) the latter do not understand what is happening and (b) they tend to
need to be restrained in order for treatment to be carried out. These
have significant animal welfare implications in themselves, and need to
be taken into account in relation to all procedures.

I would like to see
clarification of part of Clause 3.3.9: "...Before commencing a project,
investigators and teachers should condition animals to the project environment
and procedures and the personnel involved with the project", viz.
elucidation of appropriate, humane conditioning methods.

I agree strongly
with Clause 3.3.10 which states: "If animals develop signs of severe
pain or distress despite the precautions outlined above, the pain or distress
must be alleviated promptly or they must be killed humanely and without
delay. Alleviation of such pain or distress must take precedence over
continuing or finishing the project."

There is apparent
ambiguity or even contradiction in Clause 3.3.16: "Periods of prolonged
restraint or confinement should be avoided. Where prolonged restraint
or confinement of animals is proposed, such as housing livestock in metabolism
cages, consideration must be given..." The first sentence appears
to say that prolonged restraint or confinement are not to be permitted,
whilst the second sentence makes the issue conditional. Clarification
is required, for instance something along the lines of "Investigators
and teachers must provide detailed justification for procedures involving
prolonged restraint or confinement. The AEC will not approve such restraint
or confinement if not fully convinced of its necessity and of its acceptability
on animal welfare grounds."

Clause 3.3.17: see
my comments on Clause 4.3.2

Clause 3.3.18: states:
"When it is necessary to kill an animal, humane procedures must be
used. These procedures must avoid pain or distress, be reliable and produce
rapid loss of consciousness until death occurs. The procedures should
also be compatible with the scientific or educational aims." This
is another clause [also see my comments on Clause 3.3.5 (v)] where I think
that scientific or educational aims should be deemed irrelevant, so would
prefer the last sentence to be deleted.

Clause 3.3.20 states:
"Animals should be killed in a quiet, clean environment, away from
other animals where possible. Death must be established before disposal
of the carcass. Re the word 'clean': an overly sterile environment, especially
one smelling of disinfectant or other cleaning products, might be more
stressful to an animal than a less-clean one which more closely matches
its natural habitat. In many instances the animal may be in the field,
and euthanasia in situ would be more humane. I would also prefer
"Death must be established..." to be replaced with "Death
must be confirmed by at least two competent persons..."

Re Clause 3.3.22:
"Dependent neonates of animals being killed must also be killed or
appropriate provision made for their care" I would prefer 'neonates'
to be replaced with 'offspring', as many species require prolonged parental
care for their physical, social, psychological and survival traits to
develop normally.

Re Clause 3.3.24:
"When animals die unexpectedly an autopsy should be performed by
a person with appropriate qualifications and/or experience to determine(d)
the cause of death. The AEC should be notified of unexplained morbidity
or mortality during the project (See 3.1.10)", the reference to another
clause appears to be erroneous: Clause 3.1.10 is about farming practices.
Also I would add the word 'immediately' after 'The AEC should be notified'.

Clause 3.3.27 states:
"Surgical procedures must be carried out under appropriate local
or general anaesthesia." I would add that, if any pain or distress
is likely to occur under local anaesthetic, including distress due to
restraint, general anaesthesia should be used instead.

Clause 3.3.27 also
states: "...Anaesthetic monitoring records should be kept as appropriate."
Clarification of 'appropriate' would be desirable here. Record-keeping
should be as thorough and meticulous as possible, and both predicted and
unforeseen findings of all kinds should be published electronically and
freely available. This can enable other investigators and educators to
ascertain whether various kinds of knowledge already exist, thus potentially
greatly reducing duplication.

Clause 3.3.28 states:
"The choice and administration of anaesthetic, analgesic and tranquillising
agents must be suitable for the species and the purpose of the project..."
The purpose of a project should never take precedence over the welfare
of an animal.

Clause 3.3.30 states:
"When the animal is to recover from the anaesthetic, surgical procedures
must conform to accepted standards in human and veterinary practice. Analgesics
and tranquillisers must be used when required and should at least parallel
their use in current medical and veterinary practice." My comments
on Clause 3.3.7 are also pertinent here.

My comments on Clause
3.3.27 regarding publication also apply to records referred to in Clause
3.3.34. ALL records should also be available to the AEC on demand.

I agree strongly
with Clause 3.3.37: "Any post-operative animal observed to be in
a state of severe pain or distress which cannot be alleviated quickly
must be killed humanely without delay."

I agree strongly
with Clause 3.3.38 which states: "Surgical wounds must be inspected
regularly for the progress of healing and any problems must be attended
to immediately." However, this is an example of potential conflict
between research aims and animal welfare, as some research is aimed at
investigating wound healing, post-operative infection, etc. My own stance
is that it is morally wrong to deliberately create adverse events or a
risk of their occurrence, so I hope that AECs would automatically reject
such research proposals.

Whilst I am opposed
to the use of neuromuscular blocking agents on animals in an experimental,
rather than therapeutic, context, I strongly support the recommendations
in Clause 3.3.41 in the event of such experiments being approved.

I do not support
the use of animals as models for human conditions (Clause 3.3.43). However,
I agree strongly with the stipulation that "The use of painful, distressful
or lingering death as an end-point...must be avoided" not just in
the specific context cited but in all contexts.

Clause 3.3.44 contains
conflicting statements, one declaring that "Painful or noxious stimuli
should be avoided" - an absolute statement, and a subsequent phrase:
" If their use is necessary..." which implies conditionality.
This needs clarifying. My own stance is to support the former sentence
in an absolute sense.

The clause also conflicts
with the one to which it refers (3.3.71). Clause 3.3.44 states: "Severe
deprivation of water, food, social interaction or sensory stimuli must
not be used" whilst 3.3.71 states: "Projects involving the withholding
or severe restriction of food or water must be designed to produce no
continuing detrimental effect on the animal." Perhaps this conflict
means that withholding or severe restriction of food or water is permissible
for some kinds of experiment but not for behavioural studies. I am opposed
to all deprivations referred to in Clause 3.3.44 for any context other
than a therapeutic one, e.g. for pre-operative preparation.

I am completely opposed
to the use of animals for toxicological studies (Clauses 3.3.45-48). This
opposition is reinforced by the weakness of your Code of Practice in this
area with regard to animal welfare, for example:

(a) Clause 3.3.46
states: "The end-point of toxicological studies must be as early
as is compatible with reliable assessment of toxicity, and must minimise
the extent of any pain or distress." (my italics) This conflicts
with your introductory statement: "The Code emphasises the responsibilities
of investigators, teachers and institutions using animals to...avoid
pain or distress for each animal used in scientific and teaching activities."
(my italics) I understand 'avoid' to be an absolute term.

(b) Clause 3.3.47
states: "Investigators must not allow the painful or distressful
or lingering death of animals unless no other end-point is feasible and
the goals of the project are the prevention, alleviation or cure of a
life-threatening disease or situation in humans or animals."

There is, to my mind,
no likely scenario which justifies deliberately causing
an animal to suffer a painful or distressful or lingering death. In the
case of drugs, animal findings correlate extremely poorly with human clinical
findings, so do not provide guidance which might benefit human health.
Misleading animal findings actually cause human health problems
(for example hundreds of thousands of deaths from prescribed medicines
every year). Beyond the arena of medicine, justification of causing animal
suffering by deliberate acts is even more difficult - in my view impossible.

I do not accept any
justification for administering infectious organisms to animals (Clause
3.3.52) unless it is for prophylactic or therapeutic purposes in the animals
concerned, e.g. bacteria which may be anticarcinogenic or protect against
the development of allergies.

My stance on Clauses
3.3.49 to 3.3.53 is the same as that for Clauses 3.3.45 to 3.3.48. If
there is evidence from epidemiological, clinical, in vitro or
in silico studies that a substance, physical entity (e.g. radiation)
or micro-organism is likely to be hazardous, the precautionary principle
should apply and it should not be used unless it is likely to provide
very substantial benefits to society and can be used in a completely contained
way. Animal testing of such substances, entities or micro-organisms is
unjustifiable.

I oppose the premise
in Clause 3.3.54 that it is acceptable to harm animals for the purposes
of 'studying ways of improving the health or welfare of animals', just
as I do not agree that it is acceptable to harm humans when studying ways
of improving the health or welfare of humans, except where informed consent
has been given by a competent individual.

Conditions such as 'injury, trauma, nutritional disorder, physical exertion,
disease or environmental stress' can and should be studied using non-invasive
imaging techniques, epidemiological, clinical, in vitro and
in silico methods and human volunteer studies. Humans tend to be
better subjects for imaging as they do not have to be forcibly immobilised
and are able to discuss their condition.

I am concerned about
the weakness of one of the listed conditions for acceptability, namely
that: "(i) the principal aim of the project is to improve
animal welfare or health" (my italics) and would like to see the
word 'principal' removed on the grounds that it might otherwise be difficult
to detect instances of investigators bending the truth in order to gain
approval.

Again, severe end-points
are conditionally allowed by the Code of Practice for this field of research
(Clause 3.3.54 (v) refers), and I consider these unacceptable.

I am also opposed
to the genetic modification of animals (Clauses 3.3.55-3.3.62). Clause
3.3.57 states: "In the proposal, the investigator must inform the
AEC of any potential side effects of genetic manipulation that may have
a negative impact on the welfare of the parent animal or their offspring..."
This is rarely or never feasible: there have been and will continue to
be many unforeseen outcomes from genetic modification, often with severe
animal welfare repercussions. Clause 3.3.59 effectively acknowledges this
fact when it states: "The breeding procedures used to establish a
genetically modified animal colony, either from newly-created genetically
modified animals or those from an outside source, should be considered
as a scientific purpose, at least until detailed information regarding
the phenotype of the animals and any adverse side effects of the genetic
manipulation have been documented by the investigator and forwarded to
the AEC." (my italics)

I do not accept any
justification for "Proposals for the creation of genetically modified
animals which are expected to suffer pain or distress" (Clause 3.3.58).

I am opposed to the
cloning of animals (Clause 3.3.63) with the possible exception of that
for the purpose of sustaining biodiversity where a species or strain is
extinct or endangered and viable DNA is available. If a cloning proposal
is approved, I would not accept any causing or tolerance of suffering
in the animal(s) concerned.

I am opposed on moral
grounds to the deliberate induction of tumours (Clauses 3.3.64-3.3.67)
or any other pathological condition. If such experiments are permitted,
I agree with the conditions in the Clause, but only with the addition
of stipulations that the causing of pain or distress must be avoided and
that treatment, analgesia or humane euthanasia must be provided if any
pain or distress is observed.

Re Clauses 3.3.68-3.3.69:
as stated in my comment on Clause 2.2.15(x), I do not consider that there
is any justification for ?production of monoclonal antibodies by the ascites
method; I understand that humane methods of producing these have been
available for a long time. If such experiments are permitted, I agree
with the conditions in the Clause.

Causing lesions to
the central nervous system (Clause 3.3.70) is morally unacceptable to
me unless it is for therapeutic purposes in the animal concerned.

Clause 3.3.71: see
my comments on Clause 3.3.44. I am opposed on moral grounds to the withholding
or severe restriction of food or water except where this is necessary
for therapeutic reasons in the animal concerned.

Clause 3.3.76: I
do not accept the need to subject animals to 'stimuli designed to produce
pain'. Such research can be carried out on human volunteers and patients,
a major advantage being that humans can report their own pain levels,
whereas in non-human animals these can only be hypothesised from behavioural
and/or physiological responses. If such experiments are permitted, I agree
with the conditions in the Clause.

It is not clear whether
clauses in Section 4 are particular to the Code of Practice or extracts
from other legislature or guidelines, but I will continue to comment as
before.

Re Clause 4.2.5:
"Food and water must be provided when necessary" I would prefer
a precautionary recommendation, as the Clause could be interpreted
in a reactive context and reaction might come too late. Thus I would
recommend something along the lines of: "Food and water requirements
must be anticipated and must be provided on a precautionary basis following
consultation with a veterinary expert on the species concerned."

Clause 4.3.1: "When
new animals are being admitted into animal holding areas, they should
be held separately..." is problematic because it does not take into
account the social and psychological needs of animals who were living
in social groupings, including mothers and infants. Suggested amended
wording: "When new animals are being admitted into animal holding
areas, they should be held separately from animals already at the facility.
New arrivals should not be separated from each other if they are fellow-members
of social groups, and members of social species should not be kept in
isolation unless a serious threat of cross-infection or intraspecific
aggression is identified."

Also regarding Clause
4.3.1, the type(s) of qualification held by the 'qualified person' referred
to should be clearly specified.

Clause 4.3.2 states
that '...(animals) which do not adapt satisfactorily should not be kept.'
There should be some reference here to what should be done with such animals,
and also perhaps an addition to Clause 3.3.17 ("Upon completion of
the project, animals must be returned promptly to normal husbandry conditions
or their natural habitat if appropriate and permitted, or killed humanely
where necessary") to cover such situations. I would advocate a careful
return to an animal's natural habitat if it has been wild-caught. This
needs to be carefully done since some species will tend to attack or otherwise
reject an animal if it carries unfamiliar or disturbing smells, and animals
must not be relocated in such a way that territories or food supplies
are compromised. Expert help and guidance on releasing animals must be
sought.
Healthy non-wild-caught animals should be found places in sanctuaries
or caring homes. Euthanasia should only be a last resort, after the aforementioned
solutions have been fully explored with the help of animal welfare organisations.
Re Clause 4.4.7, it should be borne in mind that many construction materials
contain and/or emit synthetic chemicals of known or potential toxicity,
so these should be avoided as far as is possible in the construction of
facilities.

Re Clause 4.4.10:
"The choice of detergents, disinfectants, deodorants and pesticides
must avoid contamination of the animals’ environment and should
be made in consultation with investigators and teachers", it is important
to consult experts in toxicology as well: investigators and teachers will
not necessarily have the required knowledge. In view of the extreme paucity
of knowledge about the safety of many such products, I would like to see
a recommendation to avoid the use of products containing
synthetic chemicals as far as is possible and to choose instead natural
products with a long history of safe use.

I do not agree with
the condition 'unless other conditions are approved by the AEC for a particular
project' in Clause 4.4.14: "Animals must be provided with environmental
conditions which suit their behavioural and biological needs unless other
conditions are approved by the AEC for a particular project" and
would like to see this phrase deleted.

I agree strongly
with Clause 4.4.19: "Animals must receive appropriate, uncontaminated
and nutritionally adequate food of a quantity and composition that maintains
normal growth of immature animals or normal weight of adult animals as
well as the requirements of pregnancy or lactation." In view of the
word 'must', there is conflict between this clause and Clause 4.4.22 which
states: "Variations to these requirements as part of a project must
receive prior AEC approval" and with Clause 3.3.71 which accepts
the need for the withholding or severe restriction of food or water.

Clause 4.4.21, with
which I strongly agree: "Clean, fresh drinking water should be available
constantly as suitable for the species" also conflicts with Clause
3.3.71.

I do not agree with
part of item (ii): 'provision of single housing for animals when it is
appropriate...for the purpose of the...collection of samples' which is
given as a factor 'to be taken into account' in Clause 4.4.23: "Animal
accommodation should be designed and managed to meet species-specific
needs...." Facilitation of the collection of samples is not sufficient
justification for keeping a social animal in isolation.

I am also unhappy
with factor (v) relating to the above clause: 'the need to clean the pen,
cage or container'. Such 'needs' have led to appalling conditions for
many farm animals, such as wire floors instead of solid surfaces with
natural bedding. Animal welfare must take precedence over convenience
for humans.

Factors (vii): 'requirements
of the project' and (viii): 'the need to observe the animals readily'
cause me similar concerns. I would like to see the addition of a point
(ix): 'the need to give precedence to animal welfare over convenience
for humans.'

Item (ii) of Clause
4.4.24: "Pens, cages and containers must...be kept clean" fails
to take account of the need of some species for mud, faeces to reingest,
etc. Suggested modified version: "Pens, cages and containers must...be
kept in a state of cleanliness suitable for the needs of the species and
individuals concerned."

Item (viii): 'be
compatible with the behavioural needs of the species' does cover the above
requirement but conflict between statements should be avoided.

Clause 4.4.25 also
contains conflicting statements. "The number of animals in cages,
pens or containers and the placement of these in rooms must enable
social and environmental conditions for the species to be maintained"
(my italics) is an imperative and absolute statement, so is incompatible
with the subsequent sentence: "Where it is necessary to house individually
animals of a species that normally exists in social groups, the impact
and time of social isolation should be kept to a minimum." Such conflicts,
which are rather numerous, point to a general need for more careful wording
conventions, e.g. the addition of conditional clauses, commencing with
'except' or 'unless', to the main statements.

I would only accept
the individual housing of social animals for reasons directly related
to their own welfare [also see my comments on Clause 4.4.23(ii)].

There is potential
for conflict within Clause 4.4.26: "Bedding and litter must be provided
if appropriate to the species and should be...absorbent...and suitable
for the particular scientific or educational aims..." There may be
species which require non-absorbent bedding, and there is often likely
to be conflict between the animals' bedding needs and 'the particular
scientific or educational aims'. Thus perhaps this part of the Clause
should read "Bedding and litter must be provided if appropriate to
the species and should be...absorbent (if appropriate for the species)...and
suitable for the particular scientific or educational aims as long as
this does not conflict with the needs of the animals."

The second part of
Clause 4.4.26: "Pregnant animals must be provided with nesting materials
where appropriate" needs also to refer to animals with young, as
nests are added to, refurbished and repaired following parturition in
some species. It is also important that the appropriate materials
are provided. Thus I recommend: "Pregnant and nursing animals
must be provided with nesting materials as appropriate for their needs."

Clause 4.4.27 states:
"The AEC, investigators and teachers should be informed in advance
of planned changes to these conditions, since these may affect the welfare
of the animals and the results of the scientific and teaching activities."
I believe that the appropriate word, at least with regard to the AEC,
would be 'consulted' rather than 'informed' in order to clarify that the
AEC's approval is required before such changes can be made.

Clause 4.5.4 states:
"The person-in-charge must ensure that ill or injured animals which
are not assigned to approved projects are treated promptly and that animals
which die unexpectedly are subjected to autopsy." I would like to
see the addition of 'euthanased' to cover the needs of animals which cannot
be treated, and a requirement to inform the AEC immediately of such morbidity
or death and of the results of associated autopsies.

Clause 4.5.13 states:
"Personnel employed in the care of animals should be instructed in
how to recognise at an early stage changes in animal behaviour, performance
and appearance." I would like to see reference to assessment
on such knowledge and skills as part of the instruction, to ensure that
the information has been absorbed.

Clause 5.1.7 (iii)
states: "(The capture, holding, transport, handling and release of
animals from their natural habitat must be in accordance with the following...)
all materials and equipment used in the capture, holding, transport and
manipulation of animals must be cleaned and maintained in a way that minimises
the assessed risk of disease transmission."
My comments on Clauses 4.4.7 and 4.4.10 regarding construction and cleaning
materials respectively also apply here.

Clause 5.2.3 (ix):
"(If capture is to be by trapping, the proposal must include details
of the suitability of the trapping technique for the species and how the
traps will be managed to minimise the impact on both target and non-target
species, taking into account issues such as...) construction of trap -
conformation of the walls, lids, covers or grids" should include
'details of construction materials', for reasons given in my comments
on Clause 4.4.7 and also for reasons of acoustics: for example,
some metal traps have acoustic properties which can cause great noise-related
distress both when they are activated and during an animal's period of
incarceration.

Clauses on non-trap
capture methods should perhaps also include reference to chemical methods,
such as the use of paralysing compounds. These should be declared unacceptable
due to their propensity to cause distress, injury and death in both target
and non-target species (unless there is already legislation which outlaws
these methods).

Re Clause 5.3.2:
"Wherever possible, the long-term and short-term consequences of
capture, handling and restraint should be recorded", such records
should be made freely available in electronic form to assist others working
in such fields.

I fear potential
conflict in Clause 5.4.1: "The time for which an animal is held should
be minimal and consistent with the achievement of scientific or educational
objectives" and would like to see an additional statement to the
effect that animal welfare must take precedence over scientific or educational
objectives.

Re Clause 5.4.5 "Animals
should be released at the site of capture unless the AEC approves a proposal
outlining reasons why an alternative site is preferred", the suitability
of the capture site for release will depend partly on the duration of
the animal's absence and whether the site can still support the animal
in the light of any changes since it was removed, e.g. occupation by another
animal or animals, food supply, etc. (also see my comments on Clause 4.3.2).

I would like to see
the word 'limiting' in Clause 5.5.2 (ii): "Stress during transport
should be minimised by...limiting exposure of animals to extremes of temperature,
noise, visual disturbance and vibration" changed to 'minimising'
or, better still, 'avoiding'.

Re Clause 5.6.1:
"The method chosen to identify individual animals must be that which
causes the least distress and the least interference with the normal functioning
of the animal within the context of the scientific purpose" I would
like to see either 'within the context of the scientific purpose' deleted
or the following text (or similar) added: "Animal welfare needs must
take precedence over the needs of experimenters." I would also like
to see the following (or similar) text added: "Identification methods
which interfere with animals' normal functioning will not be permitted
if they have the potential to cause distress or to impair normal functioning
following release. Methods which pose a hazard to other animals will not
be permitted."
An example of the latter is a collar with an antenna which can damage
the eyes of conspecifics during interactions such as grooming.

Re Clause 5.8 on
voucher specimens, I would like to see included a statement that the killing
of an animal in order for it to serve as a voucher specimen is unacceptable.
The range of technological methods available for recording details about
living species makes it unnecessary to take life in order to study it.
Biochemical information can be obtained from taking samples without causing
physical harm, and anatomical data can be acquired by using non-invasive
imaging equipment including still and video cameras.

I would also like
to see 'and freely' added to Clause 5.8.1 so that it reads: "Optimal
use of voucher specimens requires that they become part of a publicly
and freely accessible reference collection."
I disagree with Clause 5.9.2 which states: "The primary ethical considerations
with studies of wildlife interaction are the degree of manipulation required
to set up the interaction and the effect of the observer(s) on the interaction."
In my view these are issues of scientific rigour rather than of ethics,
and the main ethical consideration is the degree of suffering which may
be incurred by an animal as a result of human manipulation of a situation.
For example, rendering a prey animal more vulnerable to a predator in
such a way that it is aware of its impending fate for a prolonged period
is unacceptable. Another example would be the deliberate reduction of
food supply which might lead to starvation and/or intraspecific aggression.
In both cases it is the suffering which should be the prime cause for
concern, not the degree of manipulation or the effect of the observer(s).
Another important ethical consideration would be the ecological effect
of human intervention, such as a reduction in biodiversity, especially
that due to an adverse impact on an endangered species or population,
although this may only be an issue in a small minority of studies.

I am very pleased
to note that Clause 5.10.1 states: "All of the principles set out
in this Code apply equally to animals considered to be pests."

Most situations where
animals are considered to be 'pests' are the consequence of ill-advised
human actions. Therefore I consider that the AEC should require, before
considering proposals for lethal 'pest control', evidence of attempts
to minimise conflict between the culpable (human) species and the non-culpable
('pest') species through changes in human activities. Following maximal
effort to reduce conflict by such means, the AEC should require a thorough
investigation into non-harmful methods of reducing populations of 'pest'
species and/or of relocating them to where conflict is less likely. Animal
welfare must be given high priority at all times.

I welcome the statement
in Section 6 that "...all parts of this Code, including the principles
of the 3Rs, are applicable to teaching activities in schools and tertiary
institutions."

I fully support Clause
6.1.1 which states: "Animals are not to be used for teaching activities
unless there are no suitable alternatives for achieving the educational
objectives."
The AEC should rigorously examine any educational objectives claimed to
require the potentially physically or psychologically harmful use of animals,
in order to ascertain whether they are reasonable and necessary. Where
such an educational objective is not deemed by the AEC to be reasonable
and necessary, harmful animal use should not be permitted. This may also
require consultation with the institution.

I strongly support
Clause 6.1.3 which states: "Students should be given the opportunity
to discuss the ethical, social and scientific issues involved in the use
of animals for scientific purposes. Students should be made aware of this
Code and relevant state legislation. Where students use animals as part
of their training, the relevant curricula should include material on such
issues." I would add: "Teachers and students should be made
aware of the range of non-animal-harming methods available and of findings
regarding their efficacy as teaching tools. Advantage should be taken
of alternatives loan services such as those provided by the Humane Society
International and InterNICHE, and students should be enabled to try out
such alternatives under teachers' supervision prior to deciding whether
to use these or animal methods."

I strongly support
Clause 6.1.4: "The use of non-animal models to achieve educational
outcomes is still evolving and therefore should be kept under constant
review. The institution will therefore need to establish mechanisms to
respond to enquiries or complaints concerning the use of animals within
the institution and ensure that staff members and students may voice their
concerns without jeopardising their employment, careers, or coursework."
I would add: "Students should be permitted to use non-animal-harming
alternatives without jeopardising their employment, careers, or coursework."

To Clause 6.2.4:
"Teachers must keep a record of the number of students involved and
the number of animals used in each activity and the welfare outcomes"
I would add: "Teachers must keep a record of the number of students
who use animal-harming and non-animal-harming methods along with anonymised
findings of their respective academic performances, which should be made
freely available in electronic form (e.g. the Internet)."

Clause 6.4.6: "A
school or group of schools may request AEC approval to repeat a particular
activity with different animals, students, times and locations" is
ambiguous with regard to types of animal. For purposes of clarity,
I would recommend a change of wording to "A school or group of schools
may request AEC approval to repeat a particular activity with different
animals of the same species, age and gender, different students, different
times and/or different locations." Alternatively the clarification
could be included in condition (i), which would then read: " teachers
must not vary any aspect of the project, including the species, age and
gender of animals, without AEC approval and..."

The section on teaching
omits reference to animals killed to provide tissue for use by students.
This practice should be replaced by ethical sourcing [see my comments
on Clause 2.2.15(iv)].

I commend you on
your long, detailed and diverse lists of sources of information, loan
programs and organisations, but would recommend inclusion of the following
in your list of publications on alternatives to the use of animals:

Balcombe, J. (2000)
The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives &
Recommendations, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington,
USA

CONVINCE Database
(Consortium of North American Veterinary Interactive New Concept: Education)www.convince.org
promotes interactive video, CD, and hypermedia programs for veterinary
medical education
I should also point out that there is an error in the website address
given for InterNICHE - it should be www.interniche.org/

Please do not hesitate
to contact me if anything is unclear or if I may be able to contribute
further to discussions.